Sunday, August 16, 2009
Loudmouths
This call concerns the people who have been attending these town hall meetings, particularly the ones who are screaming, shouting and yelling. I would make you a wager that these people have done that all their lives about anything. They have probably sat around the kitchen table eating breakfast, yelling at one another. That has been their lifestyle. They're all screamers, and they're very rude.
*******
Rolling stone
I read in the paper that Bob Dylan was picked up by New Jersey police without ID. The comment in the paper was, how did he feel? And there was no mention. Well, any Dylan fan knows how he felt - like a complete unknown, like a rolling stone.
*******
Whiners
When is high school football ever going to get good in this town? All I ever hear these high school coaches do is complain about how tough their schedule is, how tough their district is, especially the ones over at Central. They have to play Blue Springs, they have to play Liberty. Come on, you're just playing people in your class size. I never hear the people at St. Joe Christian or LeBlond complain about their schedules, but I hear the public schools complaining.
*******
Look it up
Just for the record, it was a Republican who put that in about being counseled every five years after you turn 55 on end-of-life decisions. That wasn't the Democrats; it was the Republicans. Then they turned it around and tried to make it act like Obama put it in. Check and see.
*******
Give 'em cake
I see in the paper that we're trying to figure out what to tax to pay for the Chiefs' training facility. Kind of makes me think that our city of St. Joe is kind of like our school district in St. Joe, which is kind of like our new federal government. Let's just spend it now, then figure out how to tax the peasants later to pay for it.
Share Your Thoughts
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. We do not review every post or respond to every removal suggestion. Comments that threaten someone or degrade them on the basis of gender, race, class, national origin, religion or disability will be removed. Comments containing abusive, vulgar or sexually-oriented language will be removed. Comments that spread rumors or lies will be removed. Please discuss only what has been factually proven. Comments posted in all caps will be removed. Stay on topic! Brief quotes are okay as long as the source is given. Blatant cutting and pasting is not acceptable. Comments must be kept under 250 words or less. Stjoenews.net moderators also reserve the right to remove comments for any reason they deem worthy. Click here for our full user agreement.
David says...
Rolling Stone,
I hadn't heard about the incident so your comment caused me to do a little search. In case someone else missed it, http://www.neatorama.com/2009/08/15/b...
God Bless America, God Save The Republic.
August 16, 2009 at 1:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Wright_Winger says...
For "look it up"
It was white House spokesman Gibbs who, at a briefing of the white House press corp, erroneously stated that Republican Senator Johnny Isakson had the end-of-life counseling language inserted in the legislation. This was was later retracted, not only because it was wrong, but also because Isakson, as a Senator, could not have written language into a House bill.
"Check it and see"
August 16, 2009 at 5:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ELH says...
Look it up--I did check for myself and you are essentially correct.
As I'm sure you know, both the House and Senate have to pass legislation before it goes to the President for his signature and becomes a law. Wright Winger is correct that Isakson, a Senator, did not place any language in the House Bill. However, he DID insert similar language in the Senate version of the bill. In fact, his language was much stronger than that in the House version:
"...an individual shall not be entitled to, or enrolled for, benefits under part A or enrolled under part B unless the individual has, in accordance with procedures established by the Secretary, provided proof to the Secretary that the individual has in effect an advance directive recognized under State law...the term 'advance directive' means a living will, medical directive, health care power of attorney, advance directive, or other written statement by a competent individual that is recognized under State law and indicates the individual's wishes regarding medical treatment in the event of future incompetence. Such term includes an advance health care directive and a health care directive recognized under State law...".
He felt so strongly about the issue that he would prevent someone from qualifying for Medicare unless they could provide proof that they had an advance healthcare directive (living will) in place.
August 16, 2009 at 9:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ELH says...
(Continued)
When asked about whether the end of life counseling referred to in the House Bill was a "death panel" as those opposed to reform claim, he responded: "How someone could take an end of life directive or a living will as that is nuts. You're putting the authority in the individual rather than the government. I don't know how that got so mixed up." He went on to say: "It empowers you to be able to make decisions at a difficult time rather than having the government making them for you".
Further, when the Bush administration was pressing for a prescription drug plan in 2003, 204 Republican House members and 42 Republican Senators voted in favor of end of life counseling: "The conference agreement provides coverage of certain physician's services for certain terminally ill individuals. Beneficiaries entitled to these services are those who have not elected the hospice benefit and have not previously received these physician's services. Covered services are those furnished by a physician who is the medical director or employee of a hospice program. The covered services are: evaluating the beneficiary's need for pain and symptom management, including the individual's need for hospice care; counseling the beneficiary with respect to end-of-life issues and care options, and advising the beneficiary regarding advanced care planning. Payment for such services equals the amount established for similar services under the physician fee schedule, excluding the practice expense component. The provision would apply to consultation services provided by a hospice program on or after January 1, 2005."
The only difference between the current proposal and this one is that it would apply to anyone, not just those who are terminally ill.
August 16, 2009 at 9:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Wright_Winger says...
And the rest of the story:
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Isakson Denounces White House Comments Connecting Him
To Terribly Flawed House Health Care Bill
'This Is What Happens When the President and Members of Congress Don't Read the Bills'
WASHINGTON U.S. Senator Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., today denounced comments made by President Obama and his spokesman regarding Isakson's alleged connection to language contained in the House health care bill on "end-of-life counseling."
Isakson vehemently opposes the House and Senate health care bills and he played no role in drafting language added to the House bill by House Democrats calling for the government to incentivize doctors by offering them money to conduct "end-of-life counseling" with Medicare patients every five years. Isakson also strongly opposed the House bill language calling for doctors to follow a government-mandated list of topics to discuss with patients during the counseling sessions.
By contrast, Isakson took a very different approach in July during the Senate HELP Committee hearings on the Senate version of the health care bill. Isakson's amendment to the Senate bill says that anyone who participates in the long-term care benefit provided in the bill if they so choose may use that benefit to obtain assistance in formulating their own living will and durable power of attorney.
Isakson's amendment, which was accepted unanimously by all Republicans and Democrats on the Senate HELP Committee, empowers the individual to make their own choices on these critical issues, rather than the government incentivizing doctors to conduct counseling on government-mandated topics. Isakson ultimately voted against the Senate health care bill.
"This is what happens when the President and members of Congress don't read the bills. The White House and others are merely attempting to deflect attention from the intense negativity caused by their unpopular policies. I never consulted with the White House in this process and had no role whatsoever in the House Democrats' bill. I categorically oppose the House bill and find it incredulous that the White House and others would use my amendment as a scapegoat for their misguided policies," Isakson said. "My Senate amendment simply puts health care choices back in the hands of the individual and allows them to consider if they so choose a living will or durable power of attorney. The House provision is merely another ill-advised attempt at more government mandates, more government intrusion, and more government involvement in what should be an individual choice."
http://isakson.senate.gov/press/2009/...
August 16, 2009 at 10:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Wright_Winger says...
In an earlier posting, Aug. 14, ELH indicated my lack of reference to Section 1861 of the Social Security Act invalidated my comments.
There are two references to SSA Sec 1861 in Sec 1233 of H. R. 3200. One reference merely adds the Sec 1233 language to SSA Sec 1861 as an authorizing amendment.
The other reference on page 428, lines 14, 15, and 16 refers on to SSA Sec 1861, subsection r (1) to define the term "a physician."
The pertinent subsection reads: "(r) The term "physician", when used in connection with the performance of any function or action, means (1) a doctor of medicine or osteopathy legally authorized to practice medicine and surgery by the State in which he performs such function or action (including a physician within the meaning of section 1101(a)(7))"
This would seem to preclude your local shaman.
Sec 1233 of HR 3200 then describes the training needed by a counselor to meet the demands for Medicare reimbursement.
In my post I said the "counselors" would be government trained and government paid; I didn't say they would be government employees. The payment is self-evident as they will be reimbursed by Medicare. It may have been more accurate to say they would have government-approved training. The counselors will impart information, literature and quasi-legal advice. You have to wonder if they will have any immunity from legal malpractice lawsuits.
Nowhere in HR 3200, Sec 1233 state the "counselor" will be your own physician.
SSA Section 1861 may be reviewed at:
http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/titl...
August 16, 2009 at 11:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
goobentrot says...
Such a silly thing. Whoever councils you on your end of life decisions could be any one from your next door neighber to your barber. As long as the Feds keep their hands out of it, it will be between you and your lawyer who draws up your power of attorney.
August 16, 2009 at 12:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
chara says...
i'am wondering why dylan didn't throw a fit and get some free beer on the taxpayer? just and old mans thought.
August 16, 2009 at 6:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
backster says...
Rolling Stone,
Bob probably just mumbled on word to the officer...Freewheelin'.
August 16, 2009 at 8:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lbc says...
You really have to wonder why our Congress is frantically trying to spend a trillion dollars (to get started)
They are all over the board on ideas, options and there is clearly no concensus on even the final goal.
But, they are hell bent to spend the money........
Everyone seems to have forgotten August 4, 1977. The Department of Energy was created......TO LESSEN OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL"
Now, 32 years later the budget is 24.2 BILLION bucks a year. It has 16,000 federal employees and approximately 100,000 contract employees.
You have to say What a Wonderful Job they have done. OR,
would you say, "What in the world was Congress thinking".
They have done such a fabulous job of saving our buns from foreign oil that we are frantically trying to turn over the banking system, health care and the auto industry. After all Congress has a 20% approval rating.....it just makes sense to have them take over the world.
Is there some reason we don't shut Congress down...at least 18 months out of every 24. All we would have to do is pay them what they are really worth....absolutely nothing , delete all their "perks' (like health care) and maybe they wouldn't show up for a while.
If they were not in Washington and didn't have unlimited staff, perks & special priviliges, they might not screw up nearly as much of our lives, as they do now.
I'll bet Obama has spent at least 100 million bucks on photo ops in 200 days. Enough already.
August 17, 2009 at 12:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
WhoisJohnGalt says...
lbc, we could pay them triple their salaries plus all the perks imaginable and STILL come out money ahead if they would just stay home. Congressional salaries are mere pennies compared to the money they appropriate in order to curry favor with the voters. Face it folks, the system is broken. These politicians play around with billions of our dollars like it is monopoly money. If we don't start holding them accountable for their actions we are doomed as a nation.
August 17, 2009 at 2:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lbc says...
Some possible "new rules'............
Congress will work 5 days a week.
(The added time will allow them to read legislation before passing it into law)
Congress will NOT travel to foreign countries (they were elected to take care of the United States
Congress will run for Congress.....if they choose to run for any other office (like President) they will resign their seat so someone can represent the folks paying the bills
Congress will dispense/delete all "special privilage" deals they have put together....like congressional health care
Congress will fly home on commercial airlines...PERIOD
(first class....at their personal expense)
Congress will not sidestep federal/state criminal charges
they will be treated like "normal citizens"..promptly
August 17, 2009 at 5:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ApparentlySo says...
"i'am wondering why dylan didn't throw a fit and get some free beer on the taxpayer?"
Because, apparently, some people know when they have made a mistake and take their lumps without being crybabies.
August 17, 2009 at 10:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )